With publicsector information technology purchasing, having a multitude of good ideas is often more of a problem than having a lack of them.
With public-sector information technology purchasing, having a multitude
of good ideas is often more of a problem than having a lack of them. As
various agencies come up with ways to find, buy and implement products and
services, a "solutions overlap" frequently arises because each solution
is tailored to the specific needs and audience that each agency serves.
Pennsylvania's Office for Information Technology (OIT) has adopted an
innovative approach to merging the best aspects of individual ideas into
an infrastructure that leverages the state's IT buying power. By encouraging
the reuse of similar system components in different applications and the
integration of systems that serve similar clients, the state's Investment
Review Program (IRP) helps to realize opportunities for technology sharing
and cost efficiency that might otherwise be lost in a deluge of agency-specific
"In many cases, when we were providing feedback about projects that
were being planned by multiple agencies, we realized that we could implement
a single solution that could meet their needs," said Sandra Mateer, the
state's director of IT planning and support. "We have tried to focus on
situations where we can build a system once and use it for many applications,
or where we can build it once and use it for similar client bases."
Now in its fourth year, the IRP requires agencies proposing an IT purchase
of $250,000 or more to complete an electronic form on the state's intranet
that streamlines submission procedures while focusing the process on how
IT needs might be met to the mutual benefit of agencies throughout the state.
Raising issues, such as how a proposed system will alter an agency's business
process or how other agencies can use the same system components for similar
tasks, the IRP also allows for a flexible evaluation process as agency needs
"We provide a template on our intranet that helps agencies to analyze
their projects, and we ask that they take their best shot at making a cost/benefit
analysis," Mateer said. "The questions are designed to be simple and straightforward,
and we've left a few escape hatches because we recognize that the technology
may be further developed by the time the project gets funded."
Last year, with a higher threshold requiring investment review of projects
costing $500,000 or greater, about 60 proposals were evaluated by a staff
of 12 within the OIT, Mateer said. She expects a greater number of proposals
this year, given the lower dollar amount that marks projects for consideration.
"The nice thing about working with a template is that it can be easily
changed to accommodate changes in the program," Mateer said. "So when we
decided to lower the amount at which the IRP kicks in, because we realize
that it's possible to do some pretty significant projects for less than
$500,000, it wasn't difficult to update the template to reflect the change."
Initially wary about the extensive information they are asked to provide
under the review program, the state's 52 agencies, boards and commissions
have come to regard the IRP objectives in a positive light, as multiagency
projects have been launched and individual agencies have seen the benefits
of the approach, Mateer said.
The Pennsylvania Justice Network, also known as JNET, provided an early
IRP success story when 13 state public safety agencies were pulled together
in a common network that serves their common client base, making the criminal
history files of suspects and offenders widely available to state police,
local police, and prison and probation officials. (JNET was a winner in
civic.com's State and Local 50 awards. See Page 24.)
In addition to a strong synergy between the OIT staff and the Office
of the Budget, the investment review approach also requires a good understanding
of how individual agencies work, Mateer said.
"You need to be reasonable in your expectations and not be surprised
if initially some of the submissions don't include the kind of detail you
want," she said. "It's difficult to get agencies to think in terms of a
cost/benefit scenario. But once they understand that part of their cost
justification will be in how well they can show how their proj-ect will
benefit other agencies, they realize that this is actually a powerful enabling
tool for their projects."
—Walsh is a freelance writer based in Peekskill, N.Y.
NEXT STORY: Coast Guard updating search and rescue